tv [untitled] March 22, 2012 10:00am-10:30am PDT
[laughter] [inaudible] >> you have me very confused right now. all set? captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor avalos: good morning, welcome to the transportation plans and authority. please call the roll. >> item number one. roll-call. [calls roll] we have a quorum. supervisor avalos: thank you. i expect that we will be joined by commissioner kim. we have a motion to excuse commissioner calling. a motion seconded by
commissioner olague. taken without objection. great. the clerk of the committee is erica chang. we want to thank sf g t v four broadcasting committee as well. please call item no. 2. >> approval of the minutes of february 14, 2012. supervisor avalos: motion to approve the minutes. seconded by commissioner olague. seeing no one come forward, bubo close public comments. on the motion second, we will approve. thank you. >> item #3. citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item. supervisor avalos: welcome.
>> good morning. my name is joseph brannigan. i am the vice chair of the citizens advisory committee. i will be providing the cac chair report today, since the chp -- cac chair, glenn davis, is unable to attend the meeting. there are four items on the agenda that the cac reviewed at our february meeting. they are the following. item number five, allocation of 125 -- $124,000 in prop k funds
to the mta for two requests an appropriations of 74,000 connector road. this item was passed unanimously by the cac. it initially faced community opposition. loss of parking, a left turn restrictions, reduction on following lanes for creating a class two bicycle lane on second street authority, where we were assured more community outreach
was needed for the project to proceed. dw stated in resigned the address community concerns. dpw was working with the mta regarding the public outreach of this project. additional discussions centered on the need for the additional ceqa approval for redesign project and upgrades regarding how the project would benefit the senior and disabled communities, to which authorities staff responded that there were upgrades to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which
would improve safety and benefit seniors and residents with disabilities. item #6, approval for bayshore model stations and access studies with an idle report. sorry. the item was passed with seven yes votes two -- votes, two absentees'. there was a brief discussion on the need of shangri-la to be developed for bayshore station to be viable in the future.
item seven, approval of the western south of market neighborhood transportation plan final report. this item was passed unanimously by the cac, without discussion. item #8 concurs with the cycle 3 lifeline transportation program of proper 1b project priorities, as submitted by ac france said. bridge, highway, and transportation district, and the san mateo county transfer district. these items was passed as part of the cac's event calendar and
had six votes in favor, two against, and one absent. with this, i conclude my report. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. flanagan. commissioners, any questions for the vice chair of the citizens advisory committee? i have a quick question on the gerald project before approval today. did you hear about any? thank you for your presentation. we can open this up for public comment. seen no one, we will close public comment.
this is an information item. if we could go to item number four? commissioner? >> item #4. recommend appointment of one member to the citizens advisory committee. supervisor olague: i would ask that we continue this until the next hearing. i am getting a lot of interest and i wanted to make sure to have the opportunity to meet with a few of the people who are interested, as well as mr. jones, and we have not had a chance to sit down. i would like a metal more -- no more time. -- little more time. supervisor avalos: continued until the next plans and programs meeting? supervisor olague: the next plans and programs meeting.
>> is anyone here today that has not a cure before the committee before and interested in the position? supervisor avalos:." thank you for that -- supervisor avalos: thank you for that reminder. are there any members of the public who have applied for the citizens advisory committee? we can open up to your ability to come forward. ok. so, this item, colleagues, we can continue to the next plans and programs meeting? without objection. ok. if we do have someone coming and need to rescind the vote to continue, we can do that.
madam clerk, item number five, please. >> item #5. recommend allocation of $124,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for two requests and appropriation of $74,000 for the quint-jerrold connector road, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization programs. this is an action item. >> good morning, chair and the members. this item is on page 23 of your packet. i will be the first request allocation funds for the asset mta -- sf mta . first, i wanted to do an overview of the traffic signal project. a $42,000 traffic allocation project to match the highway safety improvement fund that are going to make detailed the -- design phase for five intersections along masonic
avenue. on page 34 of your inclosure, you can see exactly which intersections those are. fulton street, grove street, and eight streets -- haight street. this request links into the masonic avenue street redesign study, which was completed early in 2011. the currently proposed upgrades would take three objectives from that study, including reducing the number of vehicular collisions along the corridor. that study is currently under environmental review. at 78 is expected to begin the design work for this request by in the spring of 2012, completing construction in 2014.
submitting future prop k requests to leverage the remaining highway safety requests. the second request is for planning and conceptual design environmental phases of the second street streetscape project. so, this is an $80,000 propped a request for general funds for the environmental review of the second streetscape project. as the board will recall, the original second streetscape project received a $4 million block grant from the authority. recently, in february, there was a special board meeting in which the authority reprogrammed those funds to other projects with
community average coordination amongst city agencies, putting the federal funding at risk, we took action to reset the planning process. on page 40 of your inclosure there is a fairly detailed outline of what the process will entail. citing first that the process has already begun. there were existing funds already over there to start the process. so, there are three meetings scheduled. the first will be in april and will be with key stakeholders. the second one will be in august, where they go over major design alternatives. after that meeting in august, they will go over design alternatives in an overview of the outreach process. in november they will come to the final, complete solution for that court or it.
the environmental process, there are a few different ways that that can go. the current street -- streetscape project had those plans, so there may be an opportunity throughout the existing plans, but that is still in negotiation and depends on the design alternatives. we will update you on the schedule. i believe that that is it for my presentation. do you want to take questions on these? supervisor avalos: commissioner kim? supervisor kim: no questions, i just wanted to thank you so much for responding promptly. our office is excited to work with all agencies. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you for the presentation. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a transportation planner with the authority and i will be
quickly going over the quilt-jerrod road. this is to inform of the object to replace the bridge over quint street. we have briefed mr. cullen on this issue. he is definitely aware of this project. just to give you a little bit of background, the bridge is 100 years old and we're looking to replace the bridge over quint street. they have already programmed $25 million to replace the bridge. the prevailing interest here is that we are currently, as you know, undergoing ongoing planning for the potential
transition at oakdale avenue, just south of this bridge. in 2005 there is an ability study that found the station feasible, with a lot of community support. but there are basic constraints. the platforms expand over clinton street. just to give you an update on that as well, the writer ship study, we are currently completing and expect to bring it forward very soon, potentially in may. caltrans, to deal with the issue of replacing the bridge of maintaining access for the community and facilitating a station, has looked at three bridge options, given the $25
million in funding. replacing the bridge in kind would cost about $25 million. but it would not allow for transportation platforms. to build stations in the future, you would have to demolish the bridge and then build a wider bridge to accommodate. building a wider bridge with a different structure would accommodate those platforms at about $35 million. typically exceeded by $10 million, the funding available. the last option, option #1, replace the bridge with a berm to accommodate station platforms, reducing global access for the community. fortunately, that option cost
about $20 million, leaving about $5 million to do access improvements. that would essentially provide improvements for local access. it would essentially be a separate project that would be a new, local street connection that would run parallel to the caltrans right of way, providing new connections between gerald avenue and where quint street currently does. you would still be able to get to the tracks by going under the gerald avenue bridge. so, that project would also increase usage for local land. at this level it is not yet
designed, but it would be the $5 million to $8 million range, with a surplus from option #1. so, this appropriation request, for $74,000, is essentially to take a closer look at this concept. during an independent review of the cost of caltrans and design options, making sure that we are not making opportunities for a more ideal option. secondly, to do a very conceptual level of design on the connector road as workable and demonstrate that to the community before going forward potentially the closing the access on clint -- clint --
quint. we have dates for funding to be conducted once we have done the design work. we are hoping to just present this to the community and get feedback on these options before we come back to the board of. that concludes -- board action, we are looking at the cac in may for board policy action. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. flanagan briefly touched upon this project. there was concern from the public about talking about the
deeper? >> this action, this work that we're doing is largely in response to concerns, one of which we heard being that there is some pressure to go forward with choosing a policy action sooner rather than later, as we do have a bridge that does need to be replaced and we need to learn more, if we go with closing this bridge, we need to be clear that the connector road option would work. one of the concerns that we heard was that we were doing this in the wrong order in when needed to do a luminary work on reviewing these options. so, that is why we are here today. secondly, concerned about how the connector road would fit in with gerald avenue and other
street work going on in that area, reconfiguring intersection. we are taking a good look at coordinating with the produce market and bring it back to the community in response. supervisor avalos: thank you. it could very well be that we have a choice between three options and recommendations. waxed particularly options of one in two, as three is not feasible. supervisor avalos: break. any other questions from the committee? we can go on to public comment. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i bring you bicycle route 11. it has been for decades, between
multiple -- market street and the dog walked. so, of course, lets plan quickly for an excellent second street. this allocation will help the mta further, but we are looking forward to a better plan and project. and i should go forward looking -- look back on forward to facilitating public works and other agencies any -- supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public? seeing no one, that concludes
public comment. colleagues, a motion to move forward? we will take that without objection. item no. 6. >> item #6. recommend approval of the bayshore intermodal station access study final report. recommend approval of the western south of market neighborhood transportation plan final report. >> we are seeking approval. then there is the final report itself. beginning a brief overview presentation on the study and report, today i will be talking about the background and purpose of the study, discussing the alternative and evaluations that we did on those alternatives. outside we're recommending highlights the reason we're
doing this study is that there is a real station of -- are version the in fact, part of the station actually reside in the city of brisbane. including the visitation of the stage flight, further out chemistry this almost completely surrounds bay shore station. in anticipation of the new development, the local agencies have already proposed for new
transportation improvements in the area including a new extension to u.s. 1 01. also the extension of the rail line from where it ends now into the station. finally, what is relevant is a new rapid transit line that would make transit east west through this area. a number of pieces of land are currently vacant. this is really a blank straight -- slate. this is a chance for us to create a successful station. if you look at the current conditions, it is far from that vision. it is isolated, kind of scary to be at at night because it is a little bit remove from activity that is happening.
the focus of the study is how do we transform what we have now to a vibrant station? and the authority began the study in 2009 and i would like to thank our funders to the steady. we also got more from the board and their counterpart. some of the staff from these agencies are in attendant. the study was timed to coincide with the planning process. and there could be some information exchange that this statement could steady in regressed to finding with the
station and that information to be used to inform the decisions that are occurring which are under the jurisdiction and the city. there was a community outreach effort as part of the steady penn. chapter 4 details the input that we received. we did sheriff that the station location might see changes with the new development but there are allegations between serving new neighborhoods and existing neighborhoods and we should not exist either one when we make station improvements. a bit more about the specific plan because that is such an integral piece of land. we understand there to be two scenarios under consideration for land use approval.